London Times: Brits had secret deal with Sadr to stay sidelined in Basra
posted at 6:30 pm on August 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Times of London reports in tomorrow’s edition that the British had struck a secret deal with Moqtada al-Sadr to stay out of Basra and not to oppose the Mahdi Army. When Nouri al-Maliki ordered the Iraqi Army to take control of Iraq’s second-largest city, the British never responded — which forced the Americans to shift forces to the south to support Maliki’s play:
A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented British Forces from coming to the aid of their US and Iraqi allies for nearly a week during the battle for Basra this year, The Times has learnt.
Four thousand British troops – including elements of the SAS and an entire mechanised brigade – watched from the sidelines for six days because of an “accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and Iraqi officers who took part in the assault. …
US advisers who accompanied the Iraqi forces into the fight were shocked to learn of the accommodation made last summer by British Intelligence and elements of al-Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia Muslim cleric.
The British strategy in the south has long been criticized for creating the power vacuum that Sadr exploited between 2005 and 2007. The criticism assumed that the UK simply had failed to adopt the correct counterinsurgency doctrine, which the US also took too long to adopt. This changes the parameters of the whole debate.
How long did the Brits take their orders from Sadr, and how many Iraqis had to pay the price? One American officer hints at the costs:
Captain Eric Whyne, another US Marine officer who took part in the battle, said that he was astounded that “a coalition force would make a pact with essentially their enemy and promise not to go into their area so as not to get attacked”. He alleged that “some horrific atrocities” were committed by the militia in Basra during the British watch.
The British claim that the delay in entering Basra came from the lack of notice given by Maliki of his intentions. With this kind of “accommodation” between the UK and Sadr, who could blame Maliki for wanting operational security?
The Brits have been excellent allies in the war against radical Islamist terrorists, but they have a habit of making “accommodations” that backfire. Maybe they have finally learned that lesson.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
So, an agreement with a Gangster and his thugs overrules agreements with the Allies who saved their asses from being destroyed by the Germans and then the Russians? FU GB!
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Bastards.
doodleduh on August 4, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Man that news sucked.
TheSitRep on August 4, 2008 at 6:35 PM
What on earth did the Brits think they were going to get by negotiating with terrorists??? Were they scared?? This is exactly why appeasement never works — I hope they learned their lesson too!
whtabtbill on August 4, 2008 at 6:37 PM
You would have thought they learned that lesson after Munich.
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2008 at 6:38 PM
This actually doesn’t really surprise me after watching the Church of England and its brethren /talk/ for the past two weeks. Maybe British intelligence was hoping to organize a Zulu communal conflict resolution event?
Vatican Watcher on August 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Well he is flat now, so I doubt the deal still stands.
Be nice to your enemies, they will be nice to you …
tarpon on August 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Important if true.
My hunch is that the British officials – read Tony Blair – were worried about casualties and electoral losses as a result.
America alone, once again.
Well, not exactly: the Australians and a few others have fought magnificently.
SteveMG on August 4, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Further proof GB will fall to fascist Islam and the US will have to ride to the rescue again!
I guess I’d be ok with the US having to rescue GB again but all bets are off when it comes to the French, they can pound brie cheese for all I care!
And to believe GB used to be the most powerful military on earth with many colonies throughout the world, now they have no clankers and have truly become (to quote from the movie Better Off Dead) a study in mopish-ness!
Liberty or Death on August 4, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Thank god for US forces to replace the vacuum.
infidel on August 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM
The Brits have just about civilized themselves out of being a country. The Muslim problem there is growing by leaps and bounds and the leadership there is so cowaredly they are appeasing the aggressive behavior with one concession after another. As liberalism grows, the appeasement grows. Thousands of jihadists are working openly to bring sharia law as the law of the land and its working.
volsense on August 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM
They have? Apart from rhetoric, what have they actually done in Iraq? They seem to be a bit more active in Afghanistan, but with little to show for it.
If they really wanted to help, they could start by not being so multiculturalist in their own country and showing some stones about defending their own culture and legal system. Instead, they are seeking accommodation that will soon lead to complete dhimmitude.
JDPerren on August 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Thanks for having our back, guys.
amerpundit on August 4, 2008 at 6:48 PM
GB never fell like they will this time. Their will is gone and I am afraid that our will is not as strong as it should be and we bill be too busy saving our own asses to save them again in any decent time frame.
gstrickler on August 4, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Britain is officially a greater liability as a military ally than an asset.
Nessuno on August 4, 2008 at 6:52 PM
The British Military has been, and is magnificent, and they’re troops are among the best in the world.
They have shared our casualties, blood, sweat, toil, and tears in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They’re Political, Religious, Legislative and Judicial leadership, as well as their Diplomatic Corps and very Senior Generals, are cowards, appeasers, Anti-American and all ready to flat out convert to Islam, and take the country into self-surrender and Dhimmitude.
In essence, they’ve been influcenced by our own Democrats..
Dale in Atlanta on August 4, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I found this sad. This is what happen when you have piss poor military and political leadership. Your military becomes the laughing stock of the world.
jdun on August 4, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Thank Bush and the GOP that refused timetables. Pelosi, Reid and Barry will find a way to spin it.
Les in NC on August 4, 2008 at 6:56 PM
I’m going to take a leap of faith on a theory!
Does this have anything to do with the 15 British
Royal Navy sailors that were kidnapped by Iran,on
March 23,2007?
canopfor on August 4, 2008 at 6:58 PM
A senior British defence source agreed that the battle for Basra had been damaging to Britain’s reputation in Iraq. “Maliki, and the Americans, felt the British were morally impugned by the deal they had reached with the militia. The British were accused of trying to find the line of least resistance in dealing with the Shia militia,” said the source.
“You can accuse the Americans of many things, such as hamfistedness, but you can’t accuse them of not addressing a situation when it arises. While we had a strategy of evasion, the Americans just went in and addressed the problem.”
bnelson44 on August 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM
For the record, I hold no grudge against your average British soldier. Only the leadership responsible for this atrocity.
amerpundit on August 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM
The US should demand the names of those who made a secret pact with commited enemies in a time of war. They should chastised and removed from all levels of responsibility. This was an act of treason. Nothing more. Nothing less.
volsense on August 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Neville Chamberlain lives.
MB007 on August 4, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Britain cannot do much for fear of their Muslim home population. Islam is too big, abstract and scary to take on so it must be accommodated and appeased. Britain is not alone, it is the prevailing status of the west.
BL@KBIRD on August 4, 2008 at 7:10 PM
I am sure the lads on the ground were yelling at their officers…….
……….. Blame the politicians, not the troops.
Seven Percent Solution on August 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM
If this is true, it is disgraceful.
Winston Churchill must be rolling over in his grave.
AZCoyote on August 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM
You can’t make deals with thugs. It’s wrong.
jdun on August 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Bah, what a disappointment.
irishspy on August 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Sumpin ain’t right,as well as sumpin reeks!
A few lines from the article:
watched from the sidelines for six days because of
“accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group.
Ed,very interesting,that your thread from Captian
Quarters,was April 29,2007!
A mere month after the Iranian kidnappings,strange
how the timing is close,but,maybe I’ve got a loon
of a conspiracy theory!:)
canopfor on August 4, 2008 at 7:15 PM
How about the cowardly troops that were taken by the Iranians?
I blame them all. England is a land of sissies and cowards just like France. The only difference is that the English cannot cook worth a damn.
Spartacus on August 4, 2008 at 7:17 PM
We expect this kind of thing from the French, but et tu, Brits?
AZCoyote on August 4, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Well, you know, the Brits love their precious spot of tea, so I can’t say as I’m surprised. Ole’ Monty would be proud.
Leonidas Hoplite on August 4, 2008 at 7:20 PM
As Captain Ed noted, this is the second time these idiots have done this. Once might have been a local commander making a bad decision. Twice? I smell the British Foreign Office’s fine hand in this.
It may be time to invite the British to return to what’s left of Britain and say “Thanks for nothing.”
evilned on August 4, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I guess a whole lot of American men would be alive right now if we’d reached an “accommodation” with Germany right before D-Day. Instead, they’re buried in France, silent testaments to the abject failure of appeasement.
Kafir on August 4, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Huh…three former British colonies are doing the bloody grunt-work while the home country shies from the fight.
United States
Canada
Australia
Bishop on August 4, 2008 at 7:23 PM
If this is true the Brits are directly responsible for dead US Service Members and Iraqis. If true retribution should be swift and vicious. We may be truly ALONE! If this is true I will take back every good thing I’ve ever said about the Brits and take appropriate action to avoid travelling to/through England again and buying any products or goods associated with England or any of its companies. Rat Bastards!!!!!
jwp1964 on August 4, 2008 at 7:24 PM
some tacky suits and cd & dvd’s that dont work or as Royal Navy Able Seaman Arthur Batchelor, 20, said “Iran’s gifts were rubbish”
Mojack420 on August 4, 2008 at 7:24 PM
So were down to the Poles and the Kosovars?
ronsfi on August 4, 2008 at 7:26 PM
What about this, this is how the terrorist fund themselves.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2231556.ece
Dr Evil on August 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I certainly hope that the British generals weren’t happy about this arrangement, and had it forced upon them.
I won’t blame the British military because like most militaries they are subject to the whims of moronic civilian leaders.
Bishop on August 4, 2008 at 7:28 PM
And this is there something up with the Brits?
http://talibanization.blogspot.com/2007/12/expelled-eu-un-envoys-leave-afghanistan.html
Dr Evil on August 4, 2008 at 7:29 PM
So were down to the Poles and the Kosovars?
ronsfi on August 4, 2008 at 7:26 PM
We still have the Taiwanese, Kurds and I believe the Czechs. Oh…the Marshall Islands too.
Bishop on August 4, 2008 at 7:30 PM
So were down to the Poles and the Kosovars?
ronsfi on August 4, 2008 at 7:26 PM
…. Aussies & Israelis too, that about covers it.
fogw on August 4, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I have to agree with JDPerren above. Between this post Ed, and your post about the British failures in Afghanistan, what proof is there of your statement’s factuality? Britain has certainly spoken as though they are excellent allies in the war against radical Islamist terrorists – and then they turn around and make deals with them? I mean what the hell?
No, the bloody wankers need to ship up, wot wot.
apollyonbob on August 4, 2008 at 7:31 PM
If this is true, God help the British people.
d1carter on August 4, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Is there a single west European nation that’s worth a damn?
Portugal: Nope.
Spain: Nope.
UK: Apparently not.
France: Get real.
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg: Nope; nope; who cares?
Germany: Nein.
Austria: Nope.
Switzerland: Show me the money, and I’ll blow your dog.
Italy: Nope.
Greece: 3rd-world nope. (In August, nobody’s there.)
The world is down to one superpower, and a bazillion pathetic micropowers.
Splashman on August 4, 2008 at 7:35 PM
You’re damn right we did! That’s the America I cling to and hope perseveres.
Grafted on August 4, 2008 at 7:35 PM
What the hell happened to them?
ThePrez on August 4, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I think what you have to remember is that the British ruling class didn’t do this because they are cowards/appeasers but because they are sick and evil, wicked, anti-human traitors.
In other words Britain has already fallen. Just not to Islam, yet.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I’m surprised you include the Netherlands on your list because I assume your only criteria of worth is offering military support to the US, which the Netherlands is doing in spades.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Oh Britannia, appeasement is thy name.
Zorro on August 4, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Nice link to Captain’s Quarters.
I wonder whatever happened to that guy.
Rhinoboy on August 4, 2008 at 7:50 PM
um, tell me again why we ‘need’ a coalition? They only pretend to help and take credit when the job is finished. Seriously the US military is fine by itself. Getting Pakistan to ‘help’ et. al. has really caused a lot of US military casualties that wouldn’t have happened if we did it ourselves.
I am so disappointed in the UK. What a ridiculous turn of events. Maybe we should put the UK in the ‘enemy’ column and restrict immigration from there.
ThackerAgency on August 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM
The Brits did give us the political room to maneuver and continue the fight. This news is truly disappointing, but it does not change the importance of their role in Iraq to US efforts.
I wonder what other accommodations have been made. Are we suffering from similar arrangements in Afghanistan?
I have no doubt that the Brits had good intentions, but as others pointed out in comments, this smacks of something Neville Chamberlain would have done. This may have also been a political necessity since Blair was under more pressure to withdraw than Bush was with less options to resist that pressure in parliament than Bush had with Congress.
All this said, this news has to mean we deal with the Brits in our strategies differently going forward. How disappointing.
BryanS on August 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Deport Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as a throat-clearing exercise.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Wow!! that makes me sick to my stomach. So much for the brits being an allie.
vinllo on August 4, 2008 at 7:58 PM
You assumed incorrectly and illogically. Britain also offered “support” in spades.
Splashman on August 4, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Thats no excuse. Blair made a commitment and should have stuck to it or else publicly recanted and took the flack for it. Besides how could it have been a political liability if we’re only finding out about it now?
The fact is if Blair wasn’t a total know-nothing he could have studied Britain’s invasion of Iraq in 1917 and learned that the situation from the initial liberation to the Sunni-Shia conflict was bound to repeat itself in the same way for the same reasons and not gotten Britain involved in the first place.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Fair enough but I didn’t read any reports of the Dutch making secret pacts with the Taliban. So what gives?
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Sounds like Montgomery and Patton all over again. And for those that studied history in public schools, its was Patton that pissed in the Rhine while Monty was fondling himself in the REMF territory. Hooah!!!!
Dingbat63 on August 4, 2008 at 8:01 PM
The UK is as Jethro Tull sang “skating away on the thin ice of a new day” parallelized by the reality of years of unfettered “Asian” immigration they reap what hey hath sown!
dmann on August 4, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Splashman
Switzerland…..HA!HA!HA!
I believe the brits had their Tea for the Taliban moment in Afghanistan as well.
BL@KBIRD on August 4, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I’ve been in the U.S. military for over twenty six years and have worked in very close proximity to the British military many times (as well as other nations’). Let me just say that you’d better hope that none of those Brit soldiers ever hear you say they’re not up to the fight. They are some bad-ass mofo’s (not sure about their Navy). And cowards they are not. Like our forces in Viet Nam, they can only do what their civilian leadership allows. I fear that this is the case; their leaders don’t have the will, not the fighters.
PS.
I would caution you on tossing about the word treason. You sound awfully similar to the pacifist lefites using that charge against Bush.
Big John on August 4, 2008 at 8:19 PM
The U.S. military takes its orders from Saudi Arabia…the British from the Shiites…who cares, we’re out of there soon anyways.
alphie on August 4, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Ought we be surprised?
Great Britain is indistinguishable from France when it comes to tenacity and grit. This is an girlish empire that, under Henry VIII, hid behind the skirts of empty reformation theology rather than face up in a manly way to the faith whose duty it was and is to profess. The result? It’s there for all to laugh at: it’s called the Anglican Church — or what remains of it anyway.
jeff_from_mpls on August 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Not that long it hasn’t – I remember when the US and UK media were chortling about how the Brits were using “soft power” and winning the hearts and minds in Basra, while the Cowboy-in-Chief and his goons just didn’t get it.
Riiiight… just confirms the notion I have had for a long time that if you just listen to what the MSM is saying and recommending, and believe or try the exact opposite, you will usually be on the right path. See, it’s not that they are stupid, it’s that they are lying traitors.
drunyan8315 on August 4, 2008 at 8:26 PM
VERY disappointing. And shameful.
CP on August 4, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Say there, Alfer, I notice you mentioned that “we’re out of there soon anyways.”
Seeing as how this is as close as you’ll come to admitting that you and your ilk were wrong when you said the war was lost, I will take your statement as your formal apology on behalf of not only yourself, but all deluded leftist souls who pretended — against all evidence — that the war was unwinnable.
Thanks Alfer!
jeff_from_mpls on August 4, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Fake Breaking news from Bendover Backwards News,(BBN).
Barack Obama says British soldiers refused to fight
in Iraq,proves his point,the war is now truly lost!
Fake Breaking news;
Obama demands the British to bug out,and leave asap!
Fake breaking News;
Obama’s team has misqouted Barack,Barack demands the US
Military to leave,and one team member is now under da bus!
Fake Breaking news;
In Obama’s 3rd flippinzee/der/flopponzee,Obama says US
Military can stay in Iraq,and two team members are now
under the bus! haha:)
canopfor on August 4, 2008 at 8:29 PM
You’re right to be cautious. British troops are some of the best in the world.
Besides anyone wants the “names” of the traitors only has to open a newspaper (Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc.) Its the civillian (Labour) leadership that has failed, as always. They’ve gutted the Royal Navy as well.
Same thing in France if you look at Sarkozy’s recent “White Paper” where he proposes to gut the French military. He went off on a public tantrum against his Generals a while back and then a week later ordered them to salute the Syrian delegation at his big internationalist party.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Margaret Thatcher, your country needs you.
SailorDave on August 4, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Correct, it is no excuse–just an explanation. We could not have politically pulled off the Iraq invasion and political mess during the last few years without the Brits. That’s the context–the Brits are not enemies because of this. We just know now that we cannot trust them to work off of the same strategy when we enlist their help. We desperately needed the Brits for political reasons.
Remember when the Brits were talking of pulling out and they all of a sudden backtracked? I strongly suspect Blair realized that he could not get the backing of his party without this move. Unlike in the US, the British have a parliament and the Prime minister is the head of that body–not the executive officer of the state and not commander in chief. The prime minister cannot execute strategies without full support of their legislative body–it is I believe a weakness of their system and strength of the US independent executive/President system.
The world looked on in amazement when Bush successfully blocked the Dims’ attempts to to cut off the war. Having an independent commander in chief allowed us to win this war–while if the Brits were in charge they surely would have lost.
BryanS on August 4, 2008 at 8:36 PM
US military takes orders from Saudi Arabia…the
british from the shiites…who cares,were out of
there soon anyways.
alphie on Aug 4,2008 at 8:23PM.
alphie: What do you mean,were out of there soon anyways.
There’s 4 more stops for the US Military,Iran,
Syria,Afghanistan,and since I’m a Neo-con,just
to play it safe,Canada as well!
canopfor on August 4, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Dream on cano…America is broke thanks to the Iraq fiasco.
No more war for the anger management dropouts until we’ve paid off the debt and balanced the budget.
alphie on August 4, 2008 at 8:45 PM
There comes a time when playing it safe is not the answer.
Any man knows this.
jeff_from_mpls on August 4, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Your girl Nancy ran away and she didn’t pay off the debt.
Girls will be girls, alfer.
jeff_from_mpls on August 4, 2008 at 8:51 PM
alphie on August 4, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Please seek psychiatric help as soon as possible!
dmann on August 4, 2008 at 8:55 PM
You apparently missed the word “incorrectly.” My criteria for applying the label “worth a damn” have nothing to do with levels of military support, and everything to do with societal fortitude. The Dutch, along with the rest of western Europe as we know it today, will not exist at the end of this century, if indeed they make it past the midpoint.
Splashman on August 4, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Because Europe don’t believe in gawd, splash?
alphie on August 4, 2008 at 9:09 PM
All of this is true because the Times of London says so? Whatever happened to being sceptical of the media? I believe that there ought to be some verification and at least a hint of what the British military has to say before we go off half-cocked like a whiney liberal.
Alphie! I’ve got some Army buddies that would like to talk to you about your asinine comment of th U.S. Military taking orders from Saudi Arabia.
Vince on August 4, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Gutless.
Let their sailors and marines get taken by a rag tag bunch of Iranian guerillas, too.
Negotiated for them.
Just balless and gutless. This is pathetic.
NoDonkey on August 4, 2008 at 9:12 PM
You’re not psychic. What the world will like 40 years from now is anyone’s guess.
How do you know the US will remain intact in its historic American, English-speaking form 40 years from now?
At least in Italy they’re making a serious effort to crack down on the swarm of immigrants. Sheesh.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 9:15 PM
The Times of London has a very good reputation for getting things right but you raise a good point.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 9:18 PM
splashman, you forgot Denmark.
someone2 on August 4, 2008 at 9:21 PM
…and this is your brain on drugs…
jwp1964 on August 4, 2008 at 9:25 PM
History means nothing. They are cowards and sissies now. So much for tony blair, just another backstabbing liberal.
peacenprosperity on August 4, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I’m sure their soldiers are valiant, but their politicians stink! This is their “softly, softly” doctrine, which does not kill the bad guys and just irritates the good people of the area, who then have to deal with terrorists and foreigners.
Good going, Blair. How many radicals have been deported so far, under your “things have changed” policy?
(Answer: none)
PattyJ on August 4, 2008 at 10:09 PM
This is the kind of thing that liberals do. i.e. accommodations with the enemy which have been continuously proposed by the likes of Obama, Pelosi, etc. Well, the UK is run by liberal socialists so this is really no surprise.
docdave on August 4, 2008 at 10:22 PM
My bad.
It doesn’t take a psychic to understand fertility trends. Italy (and every other European nation) has a choice: quick cultural death via immigration, or lingering cultural death via immigration crackdown. The only way to avoid cultural death is by making babies in sufficient numbers, and that’s simply not going to happen in Europe.
As for the US, it remains to be seen whether we follow Europe’s path to cultural suicide. Current birthrate is very near replacement rate, but that could change dramatically in fifty years, as Europe has proven. I’m hopeful, but the same spiritual degeneracy that is destroying Europe, has put down roots in the US. At the very least, America will take a lot longer than Europe to go down the cultural crapper.
Splashman on August 4, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Splashman,
You’re obviously an acolyte of Mark Steyn. I suspected this but did not want to make a presumption.
What ridiculous nonsense. Any country could address fertility issues and set upon repopulation successfully if it it didn’t have a large immigrant population seeking to replace it with violent force.
Yeah, right. If 70 million Mexicans come to live in California it won’t be because of Europe. Every silly liberal idea of the twentieth century has come out of the US and Canada, mostly from campuses like Harvard and Yale in the 1970s.
More Steynian nonsense. Even if Europeans were to have lots of babies there would still remain the question of what to do with the millions of Muslims in Europe intent on conquest. Simply having slightly higher population numbers even within a non-liberal society (or “fascist” in American-speak) like Italy would not suffice.
You’re not “hopeful” in the slightest. The “spiritual degeneracy that is destroying Europe” partly originates from, and is in the process of destroying, America.
If you’re not a spiritual degenerate then presumably you are like myself a Christian. in which case your attitude is appalling.
Christ didn’t command you to consign non-Christian societies to the “cultural crapper” but to spread the word of the Lord.
There’s more fortitude in the Danish government than there is in the Bush Administration, who sought to throw Anders Fogh Rasmussen under the bus for not capitulating over the cartoon crisis in the interest of “understanding”.
aengus on August 4, 2008 at 11:15 PM
A slogan made famous during the 70s in California seems quite appropriate for the Brit gov in charge..
If it’s “Brown” flush it….
Unfortuantely it may be in vogue soon enough here again if ol’ moonbeam takes another stab at it…
theblacksheepwasright on August 4, 2008 at 11:36 PM
It’s hard to believe the Brits cut this deal without us (the Americans) knowing something about it. I wonder what the scuttlebut is on that. Their AO, they can do what they want? Or was there some other strategy in play? At least it made the local population really happy to get rid of the militia boys after putting up with their B.S. for awhile, sort of like the sheikhs in the Sunni Triangle deciding they’d had enough of AQ.
Bennett on August 5, 2008 at 12:32 AM
As I’ve stated several times before, England died in 1945. ::sigh:;
OldEnglish on August 5, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Ahh yes,the very brave Sir Robin and his merry band of appeasers.
The alliance between the US and Britian goes back a long ways and I have no doubt that the British Soldier is up to the fight.
But to cut deals with the enemy and stand by and watch while the green and fragile make up of the Iraqi army and the overworked US Army get into the fight is just unforgivable.
I mean for God’s sake,Canada and Poland have kicked more butt in the WOT than our British allies.
We have certainly made mistakes,but we have never sat on our butt’s when it came to kicking butt.
What the he!! were they thinking and on what planet would this have worked on?
Baxter Greene on August 5, 2008 at 12:57 AM
And if pigs had wings, they could fly. Steyn points out the fact that no country has every recovered when their birthrate has fallen significantly below replacement. There are numerous historical examples of this. The only support for your argument is misplaced hope.
Presumably, then, you would also consider Christ himself to have an appalling attitude, when he stated, “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Why, how dare he insinuate that most people are doomed. How cynical!
(Yes, that’s sarcasm. I’m not arguing with Christ; I’m arguing with you.)
Splashman on August 5, 2008 at 1:09 AM
m not so sure thats the entire truth.
We are dealing with an enemy that knows no honor, maybe they believed that the Brits would grant them some security then WHAM!
Massive offensive is put on them.
Its nice to think that the scum we fight sure wish they had a TRUE, safe area.
But they dont and thats good.
Sonosam on August 5, 2008 at 1:09 AM
I just wanted to point out that the French, Dutch, and other NATO countries are doing an outstanding job in Afghanistan. The problem with the British military is top down, absolute piss poor leadership.
jdun on August 5, 2008 at 2:02 AM
Looks that that British “soft touch” strategy that they were using was actually a hand job.
BohicaTwentyTwo on August 5, 2008 at 8:29 AM
While rank and file British troops are willing to fight hard, there have been a series of news reports in the English press that suggest to me their officers have no stomach for combat.
British officers, including generals, have complained that US forces just don’t “understand.” Apparently US forces assumed they were sent into combat to fight. I think England’s army has become dominated by officers who are afraid they will lose their commands if they lose even a single soldier, sailor or pilot.
Look at what happened in the confrontation between the Royal Navy and Iranian gun boats not so long ago. Somehow the captain of a Royal Navy ship left a bunch of ill-trained and clearly inexperienced sailors to fend for themselves. I guess the captain didn’t want to have to make a decision in case his men were confronted with potentially deadly force.
At the time, I couldn’t believe it. With commanders like that, it’s a miracle ordinary British soldiers anywhere stand and fight. It definitely is a top-down problem, as many others here with more armed-service time than myself already have stated.
doufree on August 5, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »